Confabulation

* Time for a guest post by Craig Swain. I’ve been looking forward to this one since Craig tossed the idea at me. He offers some good points about problems with historical memory, and especially Lost Cause as remembered today by folks who don’t have “memory” of then. As I’ve mentioned a few times… too often, when someone today finds a Confederate ancestor in the family tree, or begins to become aware of him, there seems to be a certain drive that kicks in, one that is really some sort of unexplained need to fill a void. More or less, it boils down to… find the Confederate ancestor, gather limited facts about that ancestor specifically (and in most cases, there isn’t a great deal there), and, unsatisfied with the limited story that provides, fill-in the gaps and build a history that seems to fit… the descendant’s needs, that is… and make the descendant feel good. It’s almost the opposite of the “teflon effect”… well, sort of. Instead of tossing parallel historical details about others (who have left documentation as to their feelings and so on) at the ancestor and watching them slide off (which is generally more accurate because we just don’t know that things that we read in other sources can and would really apply to the specific story of an ancestor), information and stories from other people from the same time – well, those stories that seem to work – are given a good coating of super glue and stuck to their ancestor. In the end, they can look back and say, “There, that’s better… now I KNOW what my ancestor felt and WHY he fought.” Enjoy Craig’s post! – Robert

Applied to a person’s recollections confabulation is the replacement or enhancement of actual events by a false memory. This is not to say the individual is fabricating, or lying, to create an alternate version of events. And confabulation is not fanciful in reach like delusions. I’m not a psychologist and of course stand subject to professional interpretations of the term. In my layman’s words, I would describe a confabulation as a false recollection, or amendment of, of actual events which might seem plausible when related to other individuals.

Some forms of confabulation are linked to injuries or exposure to certain external stimuli – certainly serious illnesses which require proper, professional care. But beyond that clinical behavioral disorder, other forms of confabulation are linked to the way our minds operate. Often when confronted with irrational or incomplete information, our minds will “rebuild” memory in order to make sense of things. Or due to associations, we link into the recollection things that did not happen.

From a sociological standpoint, some have offered entire communities have “confabulated” portions of their collective identities based on assumed traditions, customs, and heritage. In order to fill in the gaps between presented facts, the community may assume connections where none actually exist. In The Invention of Tradition (1983), sociologist Eric Hobsbawm classified this, as his edited work would imply, “invented traditions.” In the same work, Hugh Trevor-Roper considered the traditions of the Scottish highlander clans – bagpipes, kilts, and tartan. He found these were not those handed down from ancient times, but rather identifiers adopted in the more recent past.

Such confabulations are commonplace in all societies, and even from our recent past. Last year in August, we were all treated to documentaries and magazine articles looking back at the Woodstock concerts from 1969. What struck me were the number of disparities between what *we* collectively recall and what actually happened (see hereand hereor here). And specific to our study of the Civil War, we have many confabulations to support invented traditions.

I, for one, would argue the “Lost Cause” is wrapped in more confabulations and steeped in more invented traditions than just about any other theme in American history. Consider the manifestations, or traditions, cited in regard to the Confederate cause today. In some cases, reality and the tradition even contradict. Confederfabulations, I’ve taken to calling them – with tongue in cheek of course.

Much like the myths surrounding Woodstock, there are certainly kernels of fact behind the traditions. Yet, when examined up close we often find the truth is a bit more complicated than the tradition would have us believe. For example consider Tom Clemens discussion of Vexillology and the Confederate flag.

Yet over and over I run into someone speaking or writing with these confabulations of the “Lost Cause” held as the underpinnings of their premise. As we look back at the Civil War, soon with the perspective of 150 years, perhaps it is time to shed the traditions which have inhibited a full appreciation of the events. Perhaps it is time to “lose the Lost Cause” in order to fully appreciate the results of the war.

Mike, I was not referring to anyone honoring their ancestors or, good grief no, any current political movement. I was referring to particular elements that are presented as history, but are in reality collective false memories. These get repeated over and over, and end up presented as fact.

Good example. How long do we ignore the discussion over Confederate desertion rates, so that everyone feels good about the “They all fought to the very end” inscription on some memorial?

And those are the generalized, surface issues. I don’t even want to get started on the wonderful confabulations within the Lost Cause lore – stuff like Longstreet at Gettysburg, or Forrest’s tactical win-loss record, or the number of houses Sherman burned in Georgia.

I think this is where things get confused between writer and reader. I see Craig’s post more as a warning not to fall in what is, more or less, a memory trap. Craig and I both have Confederate ancestors, but I think we try to take a more realistic stance. It’s not judgmental of our ancestors, but cautionary in approach, and simply an effort not to embellish with things we can’t possibly know. When we see others fall into the trap, it’s odd to us, but (at least, speaking for myself, not so unfamiliar) because I’ve also been in that trap in the past. Usually, it’s not until extensive research in the primary sources that we realize that the trap is compromised and the myths of the Lost Cause become more obvious. It doesn’t reflect badly on our ancestors, but more a reflection of the way the “memory” has evolved.

An example of this at work in my own family background – a close relative of mine has researched one of our ancestors who served in a Virginia regiment, essentially through the entire war. My relative has collected muster rolls and other details as part of his research. One question he had – why is it our ancestor stopped appearing on muster rolls at about the end of 1864? Then reappears on the list of men surrendering at Appomattox? Adding to the confusion, our ancestor (based on other accounts) spent some time at the family farm during that winter and spring.

As no extended furlough (five months!) was recorded, nor was any mention of detached duty, I suggested our ancestor had simply walked the 100 miles home to the family farm. Yes, that would for all intents mean he deserted.

The family farm was less than a day’s walk from Appomattox Court House. Ask yourself, if you were a “self furloughed” Confederate hearing about the surrender on April 9, 1865, would you walk a couple dozen miles to get the formal parole paperwork? Might come in handy later on… maybe to convince the guys in blue you are no longer a threat… or when applying for that coveted pension.

Of course my relative has rejected such a notion outright, as “he was a Confederate, and they rarely deserted!”

Confederate records are notoriously poor by mid to late 1864, and, just my thought, but I’m inclined to believe that most of those you see with no further record after 1864… and they pop up again at Appomattox… is that they were still in the ranks in that interim period (maybe even home sick, as was the case with one of my gg grandfathers). That void in records can be explained, I think, by the possibility that they were lost/destroyed or that record-keeping had fallen behind because of poor conditions and/or the lack of basic paper. It was in particular high demand by late 1864.

That relative of yours may well have been in the ranks to the end, or he was sick at home and happened to rejoin the unit before Appomattox. Obviously, I can’t say for certain, but I have a hunch he may not have deserted.

Robert, I considered that, BUT… the primary documents don’t support such. There is at least three muster muster rolls from the regiment in that period of the war. In every case, my ancestor is simply not mentioned. Yet, the other names are fairly consistently accounted for (including a cousin of my ancestor).

So for my ancestor to have been in the ranks for those five months, his sergeant must have deliberately skipped him at every headcount. For him not to be annotated as “on furlough” or “sick” or otherwise detached, again implies some leader overlooked the individual for a period of five months. Which is a brave assumption itself.

My point is there’s a world of possible options. None of which are fully supported by documentation. To reject the possibility that my ancestor deserted simply on the basis that “Confederates never desert” would be calling on a confabulation.

“Considering the fact that there are more muster rolls and he doesn’t appear, that does leave the door wide open for possible desertion”

I prefer to call it “a self-initiated and approved furlough.”

Interesting that at some point between the withdraw from Richmond and the issue of parole papers, my ancestor rejoined the ranks. That of course opens up another point to ponder. Did he rejoin the ranks because the war was getting close to home? Or at last it was an open field fight as opposed to death in the trenches? Had he recovered from an illness? Were the crops finally tended to? Or did he just want to get that piece of paper?